Skeptipundit accuses Carter of being narrowly selective in choosing the two time scales upon which to base his case. He says that Carter's short scale is too short, the last 8 years, to draw conclusions, and his longer paleoclimatic scale is not useful analysing the here and now human experience of climate change.

So Dr Bob Carter tells us global warming is over. Well, he is a geologist. They do look for coal and oil for a living. I entered his name in the ExxonSercets.org database to see if Greenpeace knew of him as an ExxonMobil funded climate change skeptic but didn't hold out hope. Bob Carter is an Aussie at the James Cook University and I believed the ExxonSecrets database to be US centric. But, bingo, there he was...

former Director, Australian Secretariat for the Ocean Drilling ProgramContributing Writer, Tech Central Station

KEY QUOTES"The first thing to be clear about is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."5 May, 2004Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter

"contrary to strong public belief, the effects of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are generally beneficial. Enhanced plant growth has many obvious benefits, amongst them increased natural vegetation growth in general, and increased agricultural production in particular. And to maintain or slightly increase planetary temperature is also very much a global good if -- as Ruddiman and other scientists assert -- the human production of greenhouse gases is helping to hold our planetary environment in its historic, benignly warm, interglacial mode."5 May, 2004Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter

ORGANIZATIONSTech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central StationContributing WriterSource: Tech Central Station Article - Carterhttp://www.techcentralstation.com1133 21st St NW Suite M100c/o Ralph R BrownWashington, DC 20036Phone: 202-546-4242OVERVIEWTech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002 (Form 990). The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com.FURTHER DESCRIPTIONExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support." According to Guidestar.org, a nonprofit research tool, the Foundation had 2003 income of $150,000 and $110,903 in assets.The Foundation commissioned a study by Charles River Associates alleging that the costs of the McCain-Lieberman bill of 2003 would be a minimum of $350 annually per household through 2010, rising to $530 per household by 2020, and could rise to as high as $1,300 per year per household. Related information: Tech Central Station was launched in 1999 as "a cross between a journal of Internet opinion and a cyber think tank open to the public" (TCS news release). According to Washington Monthly, TCS is published by the DCI Group, "a prominent Washington public affairs firm specializing in P.R., lobbying, and so-called 'Astroturf' organizing, generally on behalf of corporations, GOP politicians, and the occasional Third-World despot." TCS shares office space, staff and ownership with DCI Group. ("Meet the Press" Washington Monthly, December 2003. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0312.confessore.html) Corporate funders of Tech Central Station include AT&T, Avue Technologies, The Coca-Cola Company, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA, and Qualcomm (Tech Central Station website).FUNDING FROM EXXONTotal funding to Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station from Exxon corporations since 1998: $US 95,000

2003$95,000 ExxonMobil FoundationClimate Change SupportSource: ExxonMobil 2003 Corporate Giving ReportKEY QUOTES"The core issue underlying all climate policy debates is whether politicians and bureaucrats should have the power to regulate America into a condition of energy poverty. The Edison Electric Institute surely believes government should not have such power, which is why it opposes Kyoto and other carbon cap-and-trade schemes. Yet EEI, beguiled by the prospect of turning "voluntary" reductions into easy cash, is leading the charge for transferable credits -- a political force multiplier for the Kyoto agenda of climate alarmism and energy suppression. This is about as sensible as selling the rope by which one will be hanged. The nation's premier electric industry lobby can and should do better."27 April, 2004Source: "Et Tu, Edison?" TCS 4/27/04

"There is also enough scientific doubt about the nature and pace of climate change to avoid committing to blueprints like Kyoto that have little effect, except to reduce economic growth. The practicable approach to climate change is research and development of technologies which will contribute positively to reduction of greenhouse gases. They will not have the dramatic effect hoped for by the designers of the Kyoto blueprint. Just as well. But they will be more effective. Poor countries can't afford fancy research and development, but wealthier countries can. Making Asia prosperous is a surer bet."29 April, 2004Source: "Prosperity First," TCS 4/29/04

KEY DEEDSLetter to Sen. McCain November 16, 2004 on Arctic Climate Impacts Assessment Press Release Source: Tech Central Station Climate Experts Respond to Arctic Climate Impact Assessment Tuesday November 16, 10:41 am ETRecent Warming Trend is Unexceptional Compared to Natural Variability in Centuries PastWASHINGTON, Nov. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- Today 11 climate experts sent a letter(please see below) to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) who is the Chairman of theSenate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee and is holding a full committee hearing this morning to hear testimony on the Arctic ClimateImpact Assessment (ACIA).In the letter, the climate experts respond to statements made in the ACIA that temperature changes in the Arctic provide an early indication of global warming. The signers of the letter point out that sediment and ice core samples show that the arctic has experienced past warming that can not be attributed to greenhouse gas concentrations. There is also a history o fstrong year-to-year variability of Arctic temperatures. The letter also calls for the need for advances in Arctic climate science in both models and measurements in order to assess a more complete picture of Arctic climate understanding.

It is enlightening to know whom you really are dealing with when reading climate change opinion piece. I like visiting ExxonSecrets.org for that. It is a wonderful tool for filtering out the ExxonMobil propaganda and has a groovy flash program where you can draw linkages between different oil lobby institutes, foundations and people. In the case of Bob Carter's opinion piece, where he trades on being a scientist, I don't think it was his real opinion or one very scientific.Global WarningClimate ChangeEnvironmentScienceCO2SkepticExxonMobilAustraliaBob Carter Energy

12 comments:

uh, sorry - didn't read through all of it but, um, so the response is to trot out a bunch of other sources that say 'naughty naughty, we don't agree...' (then NOT produce any evidence other than they're comments?)....

Sorry chief, if you want folks (other than fellow kool-aid drinkers) to take you seriously

Just yelling louder that "THERE IS NOT DOUBT ABOUT OUR GLOBAL WARMING BELIEFS!!!!" and then using 'guilt by association' to make your case - aint gonna cut it.

8 years is too low a number...28 years is NOT too low a number of years to check....when we're talking about BILLIONS of years of climate 'change' on the planet????

"The past six million years is an irrelevant time span. Global climate concerns are not focused on the possibility that we might soon see the hottest temperatures in the history of Earth. The concern is that we will see human-caused (and thus potentially avoidable) warming of a magnitude that will be devastating to the ecosystem as it exists today, and to the infrastructure and social organization of human civilization as it has developed these past few thousand years.

And by focusing on only the past eight years we necessarily encounter the short-term noise around the trend lines that are so evident on the graph, and that Carter himself seems to acknowledge with his reference to "rapid episodic shifts".

The appropriate time scale would be one that plots the changes that have occurred since humans have had the power to affect the atmosphere in dramatic fashion - the industrial age. The graph above comes close to approximating that scale. Comparing these trends to historical changes, over similar scales, can indicate whether the magnitude of current changes is normal or not. But focusing only on the very short, or the very long time scale does nothing but avoid the real issues.

It kind of blows Carter out the water. Common sense says the most important graphs for this debate are those for the period of human evolution and that the climates we want to aim for are those that sponsor us for perpetuity.

"The past six million years is an irrelevant time span. Global climate concerns are not focused on the possibility that we might soon see the hottest temperatures in the history of Earth.

If the past 6 million years is irrelevant, and of course 8 years is irrelevant....doesn't that point out the weakness in your own arguments? Isn't what we know about climate change over the past 6 million years used to attempt to support alarmist claims regarding HUMAN caused global warming?

I dunno Wadard.... you're saying that the 'relevant' time span is the period of the Industrial/Post Industrial revolution.... the past 300 years?

I guess I'm still confused. Is there established proof that the earth's temps are warmer than they've ever been before? Has this even been established? Or are the 'indications' that the rate of the rate of increase is increasing over the past 50 years (or whatever mini time scale you're choosing to focus on).

Hey, I WANT to be open-minded on this...but frankly 'guilt by association' arguments aren't gonna cut it. (yes, the scientist worked for an oil company...therefore everything he's saying is untrue).

I'm also interested in the role solar output variations over time has played on climate change... I still think THAT's your real culprit. And over emphasizing my 'carbon footprint' is whistling in the wind.

Glitch, yes - the past 300 years is what we should be looking at, and we might want to look at the previous say 20,000 for a baseline. Since 1880's the temperature has gone up 1 degree celcius, and this also correlates with the 30% increase in atmospheric co2 since then.

Now there is no contention that atmospheric co2 has a heating effect when the sun's energy passes back though the atmosphere after bouncing off the earth. The co2 traps this reflected light energy, this earthshine and turns it into heat. Hence it is called the greenhouse effect.

Do you agree with me on this point? If so then you can see that if solar flares are the problem as you state then there is enven a stronger case to have less co2 in the atmosphere. The sun being stronger, is not the problem, it is there is now 'thicker greenhouse glass', i.e. more heat trapping co2 in the atmosphere.

Glitch we are alredy seeing the effects of global warming. You don't dispute this do you? The gulf stream is slowing down is it not?

As for not accepting 'guilt by association', ie that these guys are indirectly paid by big oil to say what the say. If you don't want to accept my charge then fine, but then you cannot in all integrity listen to what these oil-lobby funded scientists are claiming when they alledge that global warming alarmists say what they say to get the funding they do.

If you are indeed open minded Glitch (and you are more than most, say, ITM readers) then you would have to agree with me here.

As for you other questions:

"guess I'm still confused. Is there established proof that the earth's temps are warmer than they've ever been before? Has this even been established? Or are the 'indications' that the rate of the rate of increase is increasing over the past 50 years (or whatever mini time scale you're choosing to focus on)."

The answers are yes to both of those, but I don't have time to google up the facts. Say, why don't you look for the evidence yourself? It is a most logical starting point for anyone curious about the realities of global warming, and good on you for showing that you are genuinely interested by raising the points in the first place.

Glitch, with respect to your other link. I know you don't like me pointing out the connections of the scientific skeptics of global warming ... but too bad. The connection clearly has a bearing on what they say ... or there would be no connection.

So investigating the www.ExxonSecrets.org database reveals that the author of that opinion piece is indeed a oil-lobby shrill, being tied to the Cato Institute among others. It also even tells the the rates he was being paid 10 years ago to be a shrill:

"Ross Gelbspan reported in 1995 that Lindzen "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." ("The Heat is On: The warming of the world's climate sparks a blaze of denial," Harper's magazine, December 1995.)"

I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I think I will leave my first comment. I don’t know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often. By : http://www.factspenisenlargement.com